An Interview on Towson University's Graduate Admissions Page

Recently the Office of Communications at Towson University contacted me for an interview about my academic career. They featured the interview on their Graduate Admissions page for the start of the Fall semester this week. I'm sharing it here.
http://grad.towson.edu/news1.asp

Why Heretics are the True Inheritance of God

For those like Bonhoeffer and Barth, the depersonalization of sin was not birthed in the new language of neo-orthodoxy, but might be better rendered as a reaction to existing problems for which resolution seemed out of touch.

One such instance occurs in both Bonhoeffer and Barth, and it has to do with those for whom salvation requires special excesses not deemed fully possible for the normal believer. Those with mental deficiencies or even children, for whom the message of salvation is an impossible quandary, make the formulaic approach to sin an absurdity. These special cases are usually handled with sensitivity, but they have one grand defect: Like those they protect, they take away the universality of the reconciliation act of Christ and parcel it into participatory criteria on the one hand, and a type of universalism on the other hand for those with special conditions. This inequality should be glaring, and indeed, there have been attempts in all mainline denominations to address it adequate, usually placing it at the feet of Christ as an act of grace, that in no way takes away from the grace offered to us. But no matter how you gloss it, the problem remains, and it was Barth and Bonhoeffer with their unfailing respect for the universal consistency of God’s approach to us all, that had them rejecting the biological basis of sin, and instead appeal to a condition of sin that is tied in with all human existence, while at the same time refusing to find its location in the physicality of the person. This is a smart, if not honest, appraisal of the God of the universe. Barth’s famous repartee comes at the expense of Emil Brunner, with whom he battled and denied that the rationality of God’s revelation Brunner claimed was unveiled in the world was enough to support such cases. Bonhoeffer, following, though not acknowledging Barth’s lead, wrote about this question in the Ethics and here too rejected anything that looked like a multi-pronged approach  to the grace of God, where some, because of their natural disadvantages, are simply more privileged to eternal life, then those of us who are not.

Personally, to consider a functional normality as the criteria of free will salvation seems to me an appeal to a mechanistic rationalist’s worldview. In this case, truth is accessible to all, and it’s only a matter of us uncovering it. But like those with mental deficiencies there are other subtle indicators constantly working against us. Those who are by nature skeptical or naïve, though a medical test might not be available, have a natural inclination to dismiss or cling to the herd mentality. In all, everyone has nuanced understandings and acceptances of doctrines of faith, that can only be uncovered once we literally test them. I wonder if a test of faith were administered on paper, how many in the same congregational bodies would answer differently? For conservative evangelicals, it may simply signal there is more work that needs to be done, despite the fact that even where a belief that a greater consistency works, I’ve been in enough conservative churches and bible studies over time, to know that even the most basic understandings of the faith are subject to a wide interpretation. We must accept that as we live with one another, we live with different conceptions of God – right down to our home churches. While many liberal churches (such as my current home) get this and allow for a variety of responses to God, the logical next step is opening this to interpretations of God found in other religions. Heresy is an unavoidable reality, and it’s time that we understand when we disagree we must agree to disagree.

A Photo Reflection on Political Rebellion

August Landmesser was a Hamburg shipyard worker who refused to salute Hitler. Reportedly he was not identified until one of his children saw the photo in a 1991 German newspaper. You can read the full account and the speculations surrounding his reasons for not saluting all over the Internet.

While the photo has nothing to do with Dietrich Bonhoeffer, it’s a reminder of what Bonhoeffer did not do that leads me to make a reflection. On June 14, 1940, Bonhoeffer and best friend Eberhard Bethge were in a small café when news of the French surrender to Germany was heard on a public radio. As all were prompted to stand and perform the perfunctory Nazi salute, Bethge hesitated, telling his friend that they should do no such thing. Bonhoeffer responded sternly that it would be foolish to make such a public spectacle of themselves, even if it was right, and that an appropriate time was coming for their resistance.

This is no condemnation of Bonhoeffer’s actions as cowardice, but perhaps a commentary on the terrible penalty that would have been incurred for making such a tremendous statement. Bonhoeffer simply knew that at that time his effectiveness in his present role required the utmost secrecy.

Perhaps there are times when courage is reckless and then there are times when no one else is taking a stand so that one needs to stand. The latter reminds me of the famous photo in Tiananmen Square, when the Chinese student stood in front of the army tanks, or the burning Buddhist monk.

In the Biblical book of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego stand up to the Persian mandate by remaining seated. Imagine someone in the U.S. not standing for the National Anthem as a form of protest! For some diehard patriots whose country can do no wrong, it would be too much to watch!

Individual acts of courage can inspire and agitate the listlessness of the masses. Unfortunately, we do not always have a roadmap or guide to tell us which ones will have the greatest effect, if any.